I like the fact that they're protesting against wall street and more or less capitalism while tweeting and taking pictures with their iphones. Arguably Apple and the iPhone are the biggest symbols of capitalism there are. Gotta love the irony.

As usuall most of the people there really have no clue why they are there other then gathering with a bunch of other people because they have nothing else to do, no job to go to and it seems like a good idea at the time. I mean what is the goal here?

I think the message of the movement has some valid points. I like how everyone says the movement is against capitalism and slams them for using Apple products, yet no one slammed the wisconsin Tea party for using public employees as they villainized the unions and took away their bargaining rights.

I see the movement is more against the capitalist greed that started this recession and is destroying America.

I see points to both sides and I'm just tired of the extremist "my way or the highway" mentality. The middle class is what makes this county great, yet they seem to be forgotten.

The problem is not with GREED which is synonymous with capitalism. The problem is with how the invisible hand of greed is being deployed. Greed is what gives you a job. Greed is what fills the grocery shelves. Greed is very very good.

The problem is that we have been living a false economy and the gravy train is running dry. We can no longer support the overhead of the USA by stealing from our grandchildren. We can no longer keep people employed by bailing out failing business. We can no longer continue to support a massive amount of illegal aliens. We can no longer support a massive prison system. We cannot longer allow the rest of the world to have free access to your wallet. And, we can longer allow companies to ship your jobs overseas to the lower bidder. And, we can no longer afford a congress that sells us out to lobbyists for campaign funds (TV ads).

Aside from age, weed smoking and costume preferences, these folks actually have a lot in common with the tea party. They are frustrated. Their message is somewhat incoherent but stems from a feeling of being exploited or overlooked. There are plenty of yahoos on hand to give really terrible sound bites. Both groups have turned to civil disobedience in lieu of more traditional channels.

But the groups seems to share a pessimism for the prospects for the middle class. It would be really interesting to see someone try to unify this shared sentiment into a powerful rather than fractious political movement. The media spin is that ows and the tea party are rival radical factions, but at their core think they share more common ground than they think.

I agree that OWS has a lot in common with the Tea Party as far as their frustration with the current economic situation. However, it seems to me that the big difference is that OWS is protesting the main beneficiaries of stupid government policies while the Tea Party is protesting the government that came up with the stupid government policies.

If I give $5 to a homeless guy because he said that he wants to buy food and then he turns around and buys beer with it, I don't go yell at the owner of the liquor store. I take it up with the homeless guy that lied to me!

I agree that OWS has a lot in common with the Tea Party as far as their frustration with the current economic situation. However, it seems to me that the big difference is that OWS is protesting the main beneficiaries of stupid government policies while the Tea Party is protesting the government that came up with the stupid government policies.

If I give $5 to a homeless guy because he said that he wants to buy food and then he turns around and buys beer with it, I don't go yell at the owner of the liquor store. I take it up with the homeless guy that lied to me!

Thats a really interesting analogy. There are lots of examples where we don't do it the way you say, though.... war on drugs is maybe the prime example, where we do go after the producers and resellers rather than the consumers.

The government's dependence (or at least the politicians' dependence) on big money donors can reasonably leave people wondering who is in charge. Clearly pols need to "sell out" to get the financial support necessary to run on their own. So should citizens take it up with the crackhead (pols) or the crack dealer (wall street)? I dunno, but I understand both sides.

Both strategies have plusses and minuses. I don't think you can say one is absolutely right and the other is absolutely wrong.

Both strategies have plusses and minuses. I don't think you can say one is absolutely right and the other is absolutely wrong.

I know that if it was my time being invested in a protest, I'd be going to the source of the problem, which is the government, not the symptom. I can't imagine anyone thinking they are either going to change the minds of the Wallstreet folks that are most likely laughing at them from their offices and, even if they could change their minds and get them to somehow change their behavior, thinking that the problem won't develop again in the future because the root of the problem (poor government) still exists. This is a classic case of barking up the wrong tree.

The only other argument that I can fathom for wasting time protesting Wallstreet is to get the message out to America that there is a small number of people in the country that hold a large chunk of wealth. However, with all their chants of the wealthy having to "pay their fair share," they all better be careful what they wish for. Right now, the "wealthy" are paying more than their share percentage-wise and many on the lower end of the scale aren't paying any at all. I'm going to laugh when it's made "fair" and someone comes through with a flat tax and all these people see the rich paying a lower percentage while they all pay a higher percentage.

It reminds me of my 10-year-old. He keeps telling me it's not fair that he has to go to bed at 9:30 while his older sister gets to stay up until 10:00. I try to explain to him that when she was 10, her bed time was 9:00. Therefore, if I really made it "fair," he'd lose a half hour. It seems to make perfect sense to me, but I still have to explain it to him about once a week when he again makes the claim that it's not fair. His excuse for not grasping the concept is that he's 10 years old. Not sure what some of these protesters are using for an excuse.

I agree that OWS has a lot in common with the Tea Party as far as their frustration with the current economic situation. However, it seems to me that the big difference is that OWS is protesting the main beneficiaries of stupid government policies while the Tea Party is protesting the government that came up with the stupid government policies.

If I give $5 to a homeless guy because he said that he wants to buy food and then he turns around and buys beer with it, I don't go yell at the owner of the liquor store. I take it up with the homeless guy that lied to me!

I see your point but taking it up with the govt isn't really effective. I'd say that they are trying to draw attention to the beneficiaries because the public is too confused to accept a message that the govt is a bunch of corrupt liars. Complaints against the govt get lost in a sea of complaints. Draw attention to the beneficiaries so that the public can't forget who's taking your money.

The only other argument that I can fathom for wasting time protesting Wallstreet is to get the message out to America that there is a small number of people in the country that hold a large chunk of wealth. However, with all their chants of the wealthy having to "pay their fair share," they all better be careful what they wish for. Right now, the "wealthy" are paying more than their share percentage-wise and many on the lower end of the scale aren't paying any at all. I'm going to laugh when it's made "fair" and someone comes through with a flat tax and all these people see the rich paying a lower percentage while they all pay a higher percentage.

That's your interpretation of fair share. Not everyone's. You can't get money from where money does not exist. Raise taxes until the high earners start demanding that we have smaller govt. Wall Street is another example of corp welfare. All those 401K accounts that trap your money in limited options are a form of Wall Street welfare. Huge pensions plans where the individuals have no options for getting to their money can be added to the list.

That said: Last week I read that 46% of americans pay no income tax. Interesting. I'll trade a higher tax on the wealthy for a flat tax that covers everyone. Why should you be penalized for making more money? That isn't democratic. Alternatively... receiving huge bonus' on the backs of the middle class isn't very democratic either. Banks that were bailed out by the government clearly have no right to run their own business. If they were run correctly in the first place they wouldn't have had to have been bailed out.

The sad part is that the same people that are protesting would gladly jump into the shoes of the Wall Streetr's. I think there is some degree of jealousy. Greed is the root of the problem. Everyone watches too many reality shows with rich housewives. People play the lottery with hopes of becoming filthy rich. People need to get back to work and remember what created this country: Hard work and ingenious ideas.

Of course, if the gov't doesn't help there is little we can do. Look at what the Korean's are doing. How many american cars get imported there? How many Korean cars do we import? It's not because their cars are better or cheaper. The new american cars are winning JD powers studies (above even the japanese), but we aren't enforcing any type of trade agreements with these countries and they're aggressively capitalizing on it.

I could be wrong. I'm just a guy that works hard, takes paycheck and doesn't get into other people's business. I try to mind my own. I've been lucky enough to not really be effected by the economy. That might has something to do with my work ethic.

Americans are lazy, greedy and complacent. All the way from the bottom to the top. Our government global policy is the same way. We need to get tough with our policies.

^^^401K's are optional if you want put your money in an IRA and you have more choices.

You are ignoring the fact that the govt will penalize you for not putting your money in the 401K. And you cannot contribute the same to an IRA and you will not get the employer contribution. You appear to be puppet mastered to not be able to see these obvious factors for yourself.

Yup, the problem was solved when that girl walked away. That's what cracks me up about these people that cry when BofA wants to charge them $5 per month to use their debit card as if the bank is taking advantage of them. There are a million banks to choose from and if that $5 fee doesn't work for you, go to one of the other ones. Don't cry to the government. Competition takes care of sooooooooooooooo many problems, but people just refuse to let it work.

Um you can put your money in a IRA as a tax deductable contribution, yes your 401K is pretax, but with the tax implications of this are minimal.

So what youíre saying is you want all the benefits but non of the downside...typical entitled attitude that is becoming more common in America, thatís the problem. I want company contributions I want tax benefit I want no contribution limits...but I also want complete autonomy. Yep your not part of the problem...what a joke you are

Quote:

Originally Posted by fly135

You are ignoring the fact that the govt will penalize you for not putting your money in the 401K. And you cannot contribute the same to an IRA and you will not get the employer contribution. You appear to be puppet mastered to not be able to see these obvious factors for yourself.

Erik, I'm not saying that at all. Take away all retirement investment plans if you want. And definitely stop with the unfunded pensions that people in govt get. Look at the Post Office. It's in trouble because the govt decided it was a little too unfunded.

I really don't see how you can downplay the tax implication. Because that's a totally ludicrous claim. Oh gee I just looked at your profile because I had a strong suspicion... investment analyst. Who da thunk?

Your right John, I don't see what you’re saying between this forum and the "politics" one I don't know if you know what you’re saying. Suggesting that the gov. allowed the guys on W St to get rich and that their abilities had nothing to do with it is crazy. Are there crooks on W. St yes, are there crooks in gov yes, are there crooks in your local neighborhood yes. So to condemn all of them is your solution. People sit there and say they don't deserve this or that when they don't even know what they do, crazy!

What is OWS think is going to happen the rich guy is going home to his mansion and say. " Man thanks Gov". OWS is a joke 99% alright as in 99% of those people down there don't even know how W. St. works they just watch the local news and get in uproar.

Erik, what i"m saying is that the govt creates a bunch of laws that end up being welfare for somebody. Just because it's not a handout to a poor person doesn't mean it's not a handout. Nothing is a flat playing field by design. So when the right complains that everyone wants a free handout they lack the ability to see that it's not just the poor, it's also the corp they worship as the pinnacle of the free market. But it isn't a free market.

I pointed out in the other thread how we could destroy the healthcare industry by simply taking away the tax incentives that create their welfare. What if we took away the tax incentive which creates welfare for Wall Street? Our govt is bought by deep pockets and tax codes are selective in who they benefit and who they hurt. In the end much of this corp welfare ends up hurting all of us. When people are hurt they are right to protest. Unfortunately too many of us can't even begin to grasp how much seemingly benign policy affects us, benefiting some and hurting others.

I don't want to take away retirement plans. I just want people to be aware that in this capitalist non-free market that the corp who benefit from corp welfare have a responsibility to the nation. The rhetoric that corp are business and only beholding to their stockholders is true because there is nothing to force them to do otherwise. But if you took away the investment plan welfare that Wall Street enjoys then you'd have a real free market. Right now the deep pockets with political influence get to have it both ways. Just like a lazy welfare recipient gets his money and a perpetual vacation at the same time. Both hurt the people of this nation who work hard and pay their taxes because the economy and tax money is skewed in their favor.

I agree with Dave... Let competition work. If I fail to operate my business successfully I close and somebody else takes my place. Why doesn't the government allow financial institutions to follow the same rules? I know the excuses.... financial collapse, etc. Wah. Lot's of entitlement in banking. They created the economic bubble and subsequent burst. I'm pretty sure my credit has been run every time I've borrowed. It didn't take much to realize that people were overspending. People should figure this out themselves, however personal greed and entitlement said "if I can get money for it, I must be able to afford it." You're going to tell me that a person with a masters in economics couldn't figure out that a neg-am mortgage wasn't going to work and that stagnant income and explosive inflation wouldn't lead to fallout. c'mon. This was a calculated play. The banks haven't suffered. They're some of the only institutions posting record profits in this economy.

Erik, what i"m saying is that the govt creates a bunch of laws that end up being welfare for somebody. Just because it's not a handout to a poor person doesn't mean it's not a handout. Nothing is a flat playing field by design. So when the right complains that everyone wants a free handout they lack the ability to see that it's not just the poor, it's also the corp they worship as the pinnacle of the free market. But it isn't a free market.

I pointed out in the other thread how we could destroy the healthcare industry by simply taking away the tax incentives that create their welfare. What if we took away the tax incentive which creates welfare for Wall Street? Our govt is bought by deep pockets and tax codes are selective in who they benefit and who they hurt. In the end much of this corp welfare ends up hurting all of us. When people are hurt they are right to protest. Unfortunately too many of us can't even begin to grasp how much seemingly benign policy affects us, benefiting some and hurting others.

I don't want to take away retirement plans. I just want people to be aware that in this capitalist non-free market that the corp who benefit from corp welfare have a responsibility to the nation. The rhetoric that corp are business and only beholding to their stockholders is true because there is nothing to force them to do otherwise. But if you took away the investment plan welfare that Wall Street enjoys then you'd have a real free market. Right now the deep pockets with political influence get to have it both ways. Just like a lazy welfare recipient gets his money and a perpetual vacation at the same time. Both hurt the people of this nation who work hard and pay their taxes because the economy and tax money is skewed in their favor.

Huh? Let's construct an argument where your premise leads to a conclusion before you mention that I did not learn to think. So let me take a look at what one of your statements would mean if it even close to logically constructed, though still being fallacious:

Corporate welfare or subsidies are equivalent to social welfare. Those receiving public funds owe the nation. Thus, corporations and citizens on welfare or subsidies have a responsibility to the nation?

I do not believe that you would support that statement and all that it entails, but maybe you would? It is hard to tell where you are coming from with such disjointed comments. Guess I should learn how to think so I can understand what you're saying.

Mik, I know you are all butthurt over my SC/Constitution rant. I presented several cases and not a one did you dispute, and instead presented a link to read all the cases and a quip by a professor. If you have a case to make then make it. I couldn't give a crap what you think and have no intention of trying to prove anything to your satisfaction.

However, I will point to you look at my statement about the HC industry and how it could not exist in it's current form if it wasn't for tax codes that amount to welfare for the HC industry. So you have your example. If you can't understand it then too bad. I find it astounding that anyone with half a brain can't think of a single thing the govt does that equates to corp welfare. However if that is the case with you then I'm sure trying to make a point that you would understand would be a fruitless task.

Suggesting that the gov. allowed the guys on W St to get rich and that their abilities had nothing to do with it is crazy. Are there crooks on W. St yes, are there crooks in gov yes, are there crooks in your local neighborhood yes. So to condemn all of them is your solution. People sit there and say they don't deserve this or that when they don't even know what they do, crazy!

The issue is that the crooks on my street can and will go to jail for the crimes they commit, but it's just part of business and encouraged financially when you're Wall St or politics. The crooks on my street have taken a fraction of what Wall St and big business got away with.

The system is now designed to protect the rich (too big to fail) and that is not true capitalism. The best part is that Wall St and big business is already at it again! "Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me"

The best part is that the puppeteers have tried to use unions and public employees (middle class) to divert the attention away from the true criminals.

John, my feathers were never ruffled and your statements about the SC/Constitution have no bearing on this conversation. At no point have you ever directly addressed or refuted any of my arguments. That being said there were 85 cases last year most of which sided with individual rights. While I did not choose to provide you with a service that I offer my clients and break down those cases for you at no point did I concede anything. Additionally, there is no need for me to provide further commentary on those decisions, which are public record when you are capable of reading the majority and dissenting opinions for yourself. If you choose to refute my claim that most of the 85 cases found in favor of individual rights then you have the link, otherwise the point is mute.

Additionally, at no point did I state or claim that there is no corporate welfare. I've actually presented no argument other than a quip about the tail wagging the dog with a link to an article about one of the OWS organizers. I would agree there is rampant corporate subsidies, tax breaks, welfare, bailouts and so on. However, I could if I chose to, defend some (not all) of these as they create positive externalities for our nation. That being said many of these also create negative externalities. Some have even outlived their purpose or might be unequitable. My point here is you do not know the positive or negative externalities of these policy decisions and therefor a cogent and consistent argument does not exist. There are many factors unaccounted for in your quick outrage and attempts to condemn. Go on with your bad self and tell us all how it is, without knowledge or insight into the reasoning behind the decisions being made.

John, my feathers were never ruffled and your statements about the SC/Constitution have no bearing on this conversation. At no point have you ever directly addressed or refuted any of my arguments. That being said there were 85 cases last year most of which sided with individual rights. While I did not choose to provide you with a service that I offer my clients and break down those cases for you at no point did I concede anything. Additionally, there is no need for me to provide further commentary on those decisions, which are public record when you are capable of reading the majority and dissenting opinions for yourself. If you choose to refute my claim that most of the 85 cases found in favor of individual rights then you have the link, otherwise the point is mute.

Are you an attorney? I don't want to be one of those grammar cops but it's moot not mute!

How is too big to fail associated with a single individual (aka class warfare against rich people) and their need to go to jail? This misguided view of corporations would be hilarious normally. I bet almost all of you have a 401k, work for one, or have family members that do. What laws did the wall street people break? Do you people actually think that businesses can continue to grow the way they did? When does any individual start taking a little responsibility for this as well? There is plenty of blame to go around. At the end of the day, the policies that were in place to protect the public from lending practices were taken off the books in the name of social justice. You know the right for everyone to own property regardless of financial risk and so on. Stock options which was originally a west coast company thing that turned out to be horrible bad for the local economy at the end of the day.

Yup, the problem was solved when that girl walked away. That's what cracks me up about these people that cry when BofA wants to charge them $5 per month to use their debit card as if the bank is taking advantage of them. There are a million banks to choose from and if that $5 fee doesn't work for you, go to one of the other ones. Don't cry to the government. Competition takes care of sooooooooooooooo many problems, but people just refuse to let it work.

David I 100% agree with the $5 statement. Although the context of your presentation didn't make sense. The $5 fee was a result of the govt making new laws. Laws that protect businesses and put the charge for using a debit card back on the consumer who uses it. Another reason for the law was to stop unreasonable backhanded acts by the bank of making unauthorized loans and then charging highly punitive fees. The banking industry is backed financially by the govt and has a responsibility to the people as a result.

When you say people refuse to let it work. I agree, but think you fail to see the ramifications of that statement. Maybe you do but nearly every aspect of our society has been legislated to put us in this hole and it's going to be painful to get out. Huge industries are dependent on the govt for their existence. Laws exist to protect professions and steer money from the free market into the corp welfare market.

Get rid of all tax exemptions and industries will crumble. Tax workers for *all* pension contributions from both the worker and employer and Wall Street will fail. The poor CEOs will have to make do with the millions they already have because the gravy train will only exist for the real entrepreneurs who prove themselves.

Tax contributions for all HI contributions from both the worker and the employer and the health insurance industry will fail, and health care providers will go into shock until they can convert to a free market and deal with real competitive environment where people ask "how much" before signing on the dotted line.

Why do we even need pensions? Workers already contribute 12% by law to a govt run retirement plan. They can save the rest on their own. If the govt doesn't need the tax revenue from all that money they can lower taxes. I could go on to say how licensing occupations is another form of special interest welfare. And subsidies for major corps. The list is endless.

" Laws that protect businesses and put the charge for using a debit card back on the consumer who uses it. Another reason for the law was to stop unreasonable backhanded acts by the bank of making unauthorized loans and then charging highly punitive fees. The banking industry is backed financially by the govt and has a responsibility to the people as a result."

1)How does the new law protect businesses? businesses had to pay a % to have instant access to funds through the ACH program. This program actually has a lot of fraud risk involved for banks. banks have to spend a lot of money to offset these fraud risks. If businesses don't like the fee, they can simply stop accepting cards and go to cash and checks. Oh, and BTW, those fees are charged to businesses on Credit Cards as well.
2) How are banks backed by the government? Don't tell me about the bailouts. Large multi-billion dollar banks are not the only banks in this country. There are a lot of community banks with employees and owners that live in your towns, and on your blocks. We pay for FDIC insurance. Ours used to cost 16K per year. Thanks to the new laws it has jumped to $137K per year with a three year prepay requirement. This was blanketed to all banks(based off % of assets), and has helped kill bottom lines accross the country

All of these new sweeping laws that have come out to punish the big guys has actually done little to hurt them. What it has done, is make it very difficult for small community banks to operate.Go look in your own community and see who donates the most money to LOCAL causes. Community banks have been supporting local communities long before the consolidation happened. Once we are gone, good luck with whats left.

The law protects businesses because it puts the responsibility for the fees where it belongs... the owner of the card. If I pay cash I'm subsidizing debit card fees. Small businesses are at the mercy of the bank. The expectation of the consumer using the card is that the business will take it without any consideration of how the fees impact the business or how big they are. And the money in those FDIC insured accounts will be covered by the federal govt if the FDIC has inadequate funds. Plus the banks are the ones getting those low interest loans from the fed, not the tax payer. Another form of corp welfare.

If the small banks are paying excessive insurance to support the big banks then get out your protest signs, take to the streets, and inform the public.

John, I think you mean credit card interchange fees which are hidden whereas debit cards are charged extra at the point of pay.

Paul, I was under the impression that locals would benefit from these new changes, can you expand on how they are harmed? I bank locally and have a great deal of respect for how my banks treats me and their customers. I would encourage anyone upset with their national level bank to move their money to a local bank. Credit Unions tend to honor each others customers without fees so I think that's a good way to go it you are on the road a lot.

See. You just don't get it do you. The fee is charged to the merchant for a service the merchant gets. Instant access to cash and guaranteed funds. The Merchant can CHOOSE not to accept credit or debit cards if they wish.

I don't have any idea what you are talking about with the FDIC insured accounts, or the wholesale funding portion of your post. FDIC doesn't cover any exposure for the bank. It only covers customers if the bank fails. Loses due to funds availability expose would come out of earnings. Banks spend billions to protect against it(thats the other side of the income statement that offsets non-interest income, IE merchant exchange fees). So while there may be good income from the fees, there are also large expenditures. banks cannot borrow money to replace lost revenue. Borrowed funds have a negative effect on capital.

I do get it Paul. The merchant is at the mercy of forces bigger than him. As a consumer I also am at the mercy of those same forces. Let people who choose to not carry cash and use the card pay for it. Can you see anything wrong with that?

I understand what the FDIC does. It gives the person with the money the confidence that the FDIC or the govt with make their money secure in the hands of the bank that needs it. I also understand that banks need to make money. And those costs should be between the bank and it's customer. I get that you are trying to say that the business get's a service. But what about the cash customer that subsidizes the costs so that debit card users don't pay fully for the use of the card? Again, when you start hiding the costs and the balance of control is in the hands of the banks, then the other people end up paying the price.

These points can be argued indefinitely with no definitive resolution. But IMO putting the debit card fee back on the user of the card is a win.

Keeping a mediocre company afloat keeps a company mediocre. Allowing bad companies to crumble allows new better companies to come to life. Imagine what GM could be if they were busted up into 3 or 4 companies without obligation to the UAW.

I work in silicon Valley. The hottest companies in the valley in the 90s were SGI and SUN. Neither exist today. Yet, all of their employees are doing bigger better things now. Should the government gotten in to save SGI/SUN? Absolutely not.

It is crazy but I admire your passion for the subject, we as a country would all benefit if people at least had the same passion. On that note i think your ideas are just to extreme and may be better for a developing country setting up a fiscal system or someone like Greece or Italy who need to revamp their systems (no don't try and argue we are headed down the same road because we will NEVER be in that situation).

I am in that W. St group that people protest and I agree things need to be revamped all the way around, but within the parameters that we have set. We can't reinvent the wheel, its just not a plausible answer. What I don't understand and would like someone to explain why Big businesses are the targets. There have been several bailouts, homeowners under water, small business lending acts, even artificially low interest rates on everything from cars to the boats we buy are just different forms of bailouts. Why is there no complaining about that, because we think the bank took advantage of home buyers? Well I have news if you can understand basic lending terms you shouldn't be buying a house, if you can't balance a check book you shouldn't be applying for a credit card. Where is the blame on individuals that also contributed to this mess? What no protest for the people that just walked away from the house that they bought because it was worthless then the original price. Do I think banks are at fault yes. Do i think W. St is at fault yes. Do I think the countless number of people that bought house they couldn't afford are at fault yes. We as a nation need to be thinking about how to make sure these don't happen again not bitching about who got what and what’s not fair.

Paul, I absolutely agree that my ideas are extreme. And I would never suggest we are on the same as Greece. Greece is closer to Somalia than the US in terms of global financial influence. I think the reason why nobody blames the people you indicated is because they have no power over policy. I would never loan money or give a CC to someone with no job or not enough wages to support themselves. But banks and mortgages companies have.

And I absolutely agree that we should be thinking about the source of these problems. That's what I've been doing. But you have to realize that one reason we are in this mess is because the fix is extreme. You can try to do it a little at a time and attempt to suffer the consequences as they come, or you can make radical changes and let the chips fall where they may. The point of my extremism is to demonstrate how widespread the govt favoritism in policy has distorted any view that people may have of what a free market really is. All aspects of our lives is affected by govt policy that some deep pocket used to educate a legislator on why we need another law to take us further into intrusive control.

It's not unimaginable that there is going be regulation as a protective backlash against other special interest regulation. But I think that the public is confused by the massive amount of policy and rationale offered up. We should be united in the view that less law is better, but we also need to understand that less corp welfare must accompany that. You can't have the govt pouring money into banks and corporations, but then leave them unregulated.

Instead of giving money away with near or at zero interest loans and therefore devaluing the time value of the money across the board, we should be protecting the domestic money supply by finding ways to zero the trade deficit and govt foreign spending. So what if iPhones cost $400 instead of $200, and Apple no longer sends $2B/year of American dollars overseas. To me that's a good thing, and I support it. I don't support printing money and buying imported items for free when it's destroying the security of our nation.

" Ithink the reason why nobody blames the people you indicated is because they have no power over policy. I would never loan money or give a CC to someone with no job or not enough wages to support themselves. But banks and mortgages companies have."

WHAT???No power over policy. Way to contribute to the same cop-out that all these people are trying to use. How about more then 68% of the population gets of their ass and votes if they care, not to mention voter turnout in for local elections. Why do you think special interest groups were created because of this F*#@ed up political system, people started to find ways to work the political system (it started w/unions). Any complaints need to start with the government don't sit and say these people on W.St get all the perks. So its the banks job to treat you like a 2year old cause you want to take 25% CC out to buy a new wakeboard? the bank is suppose to tell you hey maybe you shouldn't take out a variable loan for a house you can't afford? Way to relieve them of all personal responsibility.

You want a good start to fixing a lot of these problems...put the right people in the right positions to to regulate. Politicians need to stop trying to make business decisions. You want to know what regulations need to be put in place on W.St ask people like Indra Nooyi, Jim Sinegal and Bill Gross. Where has Tim Geithner done in his PROFESSIONAL career (i.e. not working for the Gov), what has Barney Frank or Chris Dodd done. You have politicians making business decisions...doesn't work.

It saved plenty. Hasn't GM repaid their bail-out? Here in TN, the Saturn plant was shut down after GM's demise. Spring Hill, TN is a small town and that plant closing decimated that town. Not just the GM employees, but also the merchants (aka small business owners) that sold goods and services to the plant employees. With GM's financial upturn, as of late, they are now reopening the Spring Hill plant with a four-year contract. So tell the residents of Spring Hill that the government bailing out GM didn't affect jobs.

WHAT???No power over policy. Way to contribute to the same cop-out that all these people are trying to use. How about more then 68% of the population gets of their ass and votes if they care, not to mention voter turnout in for local elections. Why do you think special interest groups were created because of this F*#@ed up political system, people started to find ways to work the political system (it started w/unions). Any complaints need to start with the government don't sit and say these people on W.St get all the perks. So its the banks job to treat you like a 2year old cause you want to take 25% CC out to buy a new wakeboard? the bank is suppose to tell you hey maybe you shouldn't take out a variable loan for a house you can't afford? Way to relieve them of all personal responsibility.

Wow, and you are an investment analyst? Let me tell you if I walk downtown and start offering loans to bums on the street I can guarantee you they will all take it. Then if I take them to court later to get the courts to tell them to pay back my money, I'm pretty sure the judge will ask me what I was smoking when I handed out the loans.

I've yet to get my dog to take any personal responsibility no matter how much I try. Don't look for a solution where none exists would be my advice to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinger

You want a good start to fixing a lot of these problems...put the right people in the right positions to to regulate. Politicians need to stop trying to make business decisions. You want to know what regulations need to be put in place on W.St ask people like Indra Nooyi, Jim Sinegal and Bill Gross. Where has Tim Geithner done in his PROFESSIONAL career (i.e. not working for the Gov), what has Barney Frank or Chris Dodd done. You have politicians making business decisions...doesn't work.

Yeah, that's right. We do need to put the "right" people in power. Good luck with that too. Nothing like stating the obvious.

No but if a bum comes into the bank he has every right to apply for a loan like everyone else. Yep no personal responsibiltiy...hopefully you don't raise your kids with those same ethics.

John like I said i appreciate your passion but your just like my crazy grampa that sits out on the rocking chair telling me about the secret aliens and stocking his bomb shelter waiting for the end of the world. I am just happy that your ideas stay here on WW, at least you have no real influence other then to complain about everything and wait for the end of the world.

I hope other investment managers believe someone investing their money should use diligence in choosing who they invest with. I'm a little curious as to what personal responsibility for a bum entails.

It's a little ironic that you use your crazy grandpa as an analogy to describe someone who believes that you don't loan money to someone who you can easily predict won't pay it back. No wonder the banks got in trouble. They apparently hired some of your classmates.

If you want we can tone down the adversarial nature of our conversation. I'm simply offering observations of how things work. Do you disagree with what I said about ending tax exemptions killing the health insurance companies? Don't you think that if an industry can only exist in it's current form because of beneficial tax exemptions, that it is a form of corp welfare?

I'm not advocating killing your occupation. It's just that people don't seem to get the relationship between cause and effect, and like to pretend that all the corps are simply innocent victims of the left's socialism.

Haha, I’m not trying to attack you (well I am but in a sarcastic manner). I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and mine is no more important than yours, how you choose to live and believe is your business, hopefully you haven't taken anything to personal (I have a sarcastic sense of communication as it is) but i do have an appreciation that you have taken the time to formulate an opinion that is more than most.

With that said back to topic, its funny that you continue to reference HC (its and easy target cause its so fouled up) but to compare that to the banking industry is apples and oranges. I believe HC is an innate right for Americans; now the discussion how to accomplish that is for another day. The banking industry (i.e. savings, retirement, lending) those are personal choices luxury goods, like the boats we choose to buy. You can choose whatever avenues you wish but you take the good with the bad. If you want control then you use those products, if you want tax benefits you use those products, if you want company match you use those products. You are right many companies do act like they are victims, but so do those individuals using them. No one was crying foul when Bernie Maddoff's clients thought they were getting 15% returns when the rest of the market was getting 3%, there has to be some personal accountability as well, don't worry there is enough blame to go around.

My fundamental issue with your (and many others) view is that your attitude to blame banks and corps and relieve individuals of responsibility, because we can't lump them into a group and protest, just promotes this attitude in America that we as individuals have become accustom to, where people believe everyone should get to own a home, everyone should have a desk job, everyone should have 2 BMW's in the drive way, and everyone one should have a 6 figure salary. If they don't then they have to blame someone.

My opinion of "fault" between banks & barrower lies in intentions and who had more to gain. There is no argument that both parties must take responsibility for poor decisions , but I believe what banks did was extremely unethical.

I find it difficult to fault the lower to middle class American that was chasing the American Dream of home ownership. Many of these people saw sky rocketing home prices and felt it was also a safe investment. Many of these same Americans were fooled into thinking they could some how afford these homes with shady loan practices. The banks / lenders knew that easy unethical loans were fueling a housing bubble, but they were making too much money. The bubble burst and Uncle Sam (AKA, American Tax Payer) stepped in to save the "too big to fail" while most Americans lost their home.

The best part is that the banks and large business are now untouchable in the American's eye. Will the tax payer bail business out next time they make poor desicions? What is the motivation for not doing this again considering they made so much the first time around?

BTW…I was the smart one and didn't over extend myself in loans….or was I considering I lost a ton of money in home value and retirement investments.

Erik, don't worry I have a thick skin. But I fail to see your point about personal responsibility. Businesses go broke and don't pay their debts and so do individuals. Dumping an underwater house is no different than businesses that walk away from a failing situation. So what's your idea of personal responsibility? I thought we already had it. It's called a credit record and a court system that will garnish pay.

Are you advocating that the tax payer cover the banks lack of diligence with a debtors prison? Or do you just want lip service towards acknowledging that people should pay their debts? The bottom line is that both businesses and individuals will take advantage of any situation offered to them. If banks are willing to offer credit cards to people, then people will take them. Whether they picked the right people is between the bank and the customer. But this isn't even where my issues lie. I think the law that prevents banks from giving people loans they didn't ask for is a good one. I.E. punitive fees on a debit card overdraw. I have no problem paying $5/month if I use my debit card. I'm cheap as hell so I'll more likely pay cash. Or I'll find a bank that doesn't charge based on maintaining a minimum balance. I have no problem with pay as you go.

But McGavin is spot on about the housing bubble. I don't blame the individual at all for lax loan policy and the profiteers who lusted after closing costs. Hyper inflated housing gave people the impression that it was buy now or never own a home. The govt offered the fuel and the banks burned it full bore. Anyone with half a brain who should know basic economics could have seen that ARM loans and rapidly escalating appraisals were a ticking time bomb. On the other hand I don't expect that the average Joe could grasp anything other than he'd better get a house if he could.

The point of everything I've been saying is that it's easy to identify how corp America is highly dependent on govt welfare. Even fiat money is a form of corp welfare. We all got in this together and if corporations can only be made to show some allegiance to America through regulation then so be it.

Though I do tend to agree with folks that individuals did not act responsibly, there was a time when you went for a loan or a credit card and the credit institution would determine if you were able to afford it. Since the education system likes liberal arts instead of actual skills people need, most of the public are not the experts in sound financial principles. Many did rely on this lending institutions to not give them money if they were too big of a risk. That abruptly changed. I think it changed due to a president wanting to create an economy out of changing the rules that society were used to but kept things in check (Glass-Stegal). That is dangerous.

Here I am railing against unfunded group pension plans and along comes this... Corporate officers enriching themselves on employee pension plans and leaving the deficit for the low level employees who have no control. Of course I can easily imagine the govt bailing out these plans with tax payer money.